Has an American president ever expressed such implicit hostility toward his own nation's pre-eminence in world affairs? Or so relished in recalling its failings, or so readily elevated himself and his own virtues over those of his country?...

"For those who question the character and cause of my nation," Obama said, "I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." In other words, he's the redeemer of a nation....

Ugh. Sigh. And I thought Gaddafy was the clown. But that was yesterday, as I watched TV with the sound off, under the influence of post-toe-op drugs.

I'm torn. I was just thinking that Obama would have been so much better if he had made foreign policy the centerpiece of his presidency instead of perversely investing his reputation in complicated health care puzzles. Now, I'm thinking perhaps we're better off that he's gotten hopelessly distracted by insoluable insurance problems.

***

You know, Lowry's description made me think of Mr. Van Driessen on "Beavis and Butt-Head." I was going to embed some apt video clip of the hippie teacher — maybe something with him lecturing the boys about world peace — but all I could find was this and my inner Nancy Pelosi scolded me about this balance between freedom and safety.

I remember Rich Lowry from last year, for his impression of a menopausal male with a crush on The Sarah. Let us savor his remarks from The Corner:

I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.

Poverty in America is primarily a cultural phenomenon, driven by a shattered work ethic and sexual irresponsibility. Child poverty would be nearly obliterated if every household had one adult working full time and married parents.

It was my job once to sit through all these speeches and take notes. Bush was president. When he spoke, he got lukewarm, almost impolite applause. When the Secretary General spoke (the previous one), he got a standing o' for lambasting the United States and generally supporting radically leftist programs. The best speech was from some really small country. The speaker charged that there was this crazy conspiratorial coup that was like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel.

Anyway, these speeches are pablum. They're crazy short. Obama didn't need to say anything of substance. The fact that he did and managed to make news about it shows an almost uncanny ability to hurt himself politically. Where will it stop? When will he realize that it is his talking and lack of doing that is at the root of his problems?

Well, Seven Machos, to hear some of the people here tell it, the problem is not Obama, the problem is Lowry, who practically got a trill running up his leg as he listened to a politician.

I was just thinking that Obama would have been so much better if he had made foreign policy the centerpiece of his presidency instead of perversely investing his reputation in complicated health care puzzles.

Nobody who cares a whit about foreign policy could possibly think such a thing. I'm not sure there's any subject in which Obama's narcissism and inexperience wouldn't be the dominant factors.

I think that the speech was a good speech, a positive one, one that expressed our determination to reach peace, and he also said something that we have asked for over the course of the last half-a-year, and that is the need to meet and to begin the diplomatic process without preconditions."

"Secondly, he spoke very clearly and sharply about the right of Israel [to exist] as a state of the Jewish people. And I believe that the refusal to accept this is the root of the conflict [with the Arabs]. So this clear statement which was made on a global stage is important vis-à-vis the Arab world and especially the Palestinians."

"Thirdly, he praised the efforts we have made to ease the roadblocks, advance the Palestinian economy. All of these things advance a diplomatic process that is responsible and measured. The things he said regarding the occupation are not new. He said the same things in Cairo, and in fact this is the formulation that was adopted in the road map, and it does not mean that we have to retreat to the '67 lines."

"For those who question the character and cause of my nation," Obama said, "I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." In other words, he's the redeemer of a nation....

If he really wants to redeem America, shouldn't he offer himself up to be crucified for our sins? Now that would be worth watching.

President Obama yesterday did his best impression of a high-school sophomore participating in his first Model UN meeting, retailing pious clichés he learned from his pony-tailed social studies teacher."

How dare Lowry insult high school sophomores by comparing them to Obama's ineptitude! I'm still waiting for any of Obama's buttboys to show actual evidence to his supposed genius.

"Poverty in America is primarily a cultural phenomenon, driven by a shattered work ethic and sexual irresponsibility. Child poverty would be nearly obliterated if every household had one adult working full time and married parents."

That is a standard conservative view.

Poor women having multiple babies as teenagers/young adults and no husband around leads to poor children. Most children in DC, for example, are born to unwed mothers. Most of those mothers are not lobbyists on K Street, but poor or lower middle class.

It happens in Appalachia too amomg poor whites.

Not all poverty is caused by this but quite a bit. Perhaps "nearly" all.

"Phos -- When was the last time a presidential speech at the beginning of a UN General Assembly was a topic for discussion?"

NEVER!!!

That is the very ROOT of our righteous outrage, no?

Obama's clownishness is of UNPRECEDENTED dimensions!!

NEVER BEFORE. . . and I say this without actually checking because Obama's inadequacy is so manifest that it doesn't need to bechecked. . . has a presidential speech at the beginning of a UN General Assembly been a topic for something as low and unseemly as. . . discussion!"

Had I any tears left from Obama's last outrage, I would weep for my country.

hey, man, maybe high school sophomores SHOULD be running the country. Maybe all a president ever needs to know he learned in sophomore year. Maybe YOU all are the ones who are the stupid ones, fighting all those wars and buying all that meaningless crap!! YOU SUCK!

Otherwise, yes, I would agree with you. Even among hardcore political wonks, the speeches given at the outset of the UN General Assembly are not newsworthy. Much like the performance of a toilet. they can only be newsworthy if there's something wrong with them.

Narcissism being Obama's dominant personality trait, besmirching our nation or any person or group in order to make himself look good is standard procedure. Narcissist don't care about the harm they do, just promoting their own beauty.

I suppose we will have to follow the money to figure out the Amazing Mr Obama. He is taking the attitude that it's not his fault that the USA protected everybody in the Free World for 60 years, so the wealthy Arabs need to forgive our mistakes that we made when giving protection to those Genocidal Rascist Sabras occupying Jerusalem and environs. With the world's mandatory replacement currency coming out next month Obama wants full support from those Arab Oil producers. What could go wrong with that? Well Israel could stop that by taking out Iran's Nukes before Obama can decide to take out the Israeli Airforce. Remember all you children of Obama that drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore is DIRTY, but murdering another six million Jews for blood money is PURE and wise.

You don't get it. Whenever Obama speaks, he promises a huge change to something.

Seven is saying that sometimes, all a president has to do is just make an appearance. Plus I bet Obama's speechwriters could use a a day off!"

Yes, Steve is saying that. . . and also that Obama's insistence on speaking substanrtively is a disgrace to the Office of The President. Because of course, no one can so muc as remember when an introductory addres the the UN Generral assembly was ever. . . talked about!!!!

It is simply more proog. . . as if more proof were needed. . . that Obama is a Disgrace To The Office of The President!

Has an American president ever expressed such implicit hostility toward his own nation's pre-eminence in world affairs? Or so relished in recalling its failings, or so readily elevated himself and his own virtues over those of his country?...

Lowry has some points, but his neocon-fueled delusions about America as the Lone Hyperpower, preeminent in the world, able to do unlimited "adventures" to order the world properly with our unlimited treasure and military capacity? That is on a par with a classic British imperialist, in grip of similar delusion, talking in 1952 about how best to keep the Mighty British Empire as the preeminent force in the world, drawing on it's vast financial resources to "solve" at least a dozen major global crises.

The neocons echo that sort of delusion, but add in neocon candy to the masses in the form of promising more tax cuts for the wealthy, no Draft needed simultaneously with their advocacy of 8-10 more nation-building wars on behalf of ourselves or our special friend Israel....and that the US needs no allies to do all that because all our allies are weak or worthless..save Our Special Friend.

Somewhere along the way, many think when Nixon fell and the Trilateralists/Globalists/Present Ruling Elite of both Parties emerged...America transitioned from an industrial superpower and creditor nation justly ordering the World Bank and everyone knowing the dollar was unquestioned and our military power dominant over all but the Soviets...to what we are now.

The world's greatest debtor nation ever.The dollar poised to be abandoned as the global reserve currency.A trillion plus trade deficit, with a deficit run with every nation but Cuba and a few small Pacific Islands..An overstretched military, burned out, growingly demoralized in futile war..

I don't like Obama's hyperinflated opinion about himself. He is the classic "know it all", "golden boy" Private or 2nd Lieutenant who had his butt schmootched all his life by others who finds himself in over his head..propelled up only by his massive ego to take breaths now and then while confidently asserting he isn't drowning.

I dislike his classic Leftist inclination to blame America for problems not really of our doing, his moral equivalency.

But in one key, critical area he is right, while Lowry and the neocons and Reagan triumphalists and supply siders are dangerously wrong.

**America does have limits. We cannot go it alone. We can't fix everything and magically fund it all with debt and still dole out tax cuts to Party backers.***

Obama of course is continuing the fiscal recklessness of Bush and the Republicans..but a lot of that is driven by Bush and Wall Street blunders, the need to address that our healthcare system is twice as costly as comparable care in other nations. Paying somehow for Bush's "free" 13 trillion dollar prescription drug benefit.

But none of the 8-10 new wars of military nation-building the necon crazies want, policies that favor the top 1% while screwing the other 99% of Americans.

The pendulum has swung. Away from the right wing, military triumphalist, New American Empire crazies and the nutty supply siders that wanted "Government out of overseeing Wall Street and our financiers". Swung too far Left, though, under The One..

But the days of saying "Isn't it great our corporate leaders who fly in the lear jets and are out grouse-shooting in Scotland take such good care of us lowly working types and investors the governement should leave them alone..." -- are over. Same with suply side theory. And the same with those saying that two ugly wars aren't enough..for starters - lets also have one with Iran, and get troops into Darfur, Georgia, and Burma as well fighting for "noble freedom loving people!! like or Iraqi, Israeli, and Afghan Freedom Loving!! friends?? That's over, too.

Oh. Because Rich Lowry wrote a silly Palin piece, everything he writes from now on is silly?

Grow up. Or apply that same standard to all political journalists. Lowry nails it here. Unless you agree that the U.S. should grovel to the rest of the world and only just now (thanks to The One) are we doing good things to "redeem" ourselves somehow to the rest of the world.

Willie Pete wrote: To clinch it, you might want to add something to the effect of "I'm not saying he's the worst president ever, I just think he is an evil man who wants to kill us all.

No, he doesn't want to kill us all. He wants to control us all. Just like with Chavez, he wants to overthrow our democratic nation while we smile and nod and wonder what he's up to until it's too late.

The man announced in his own books that his philosophical influences were marxists. Why would anyone not believe him?

"No, he doesn't want to kill us all. He wants to control us all. Just like with Chavez, he wants to overthrow our democratic nation while we smile and nod and wonder what he's up to until it's too late."

Ahh, yes. . . one O to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them!

I also hear that he wants to make it so that it's always winter. . . and never Christmas!!!

I'm just glad that we have a President willing to tell the world that he ALONE managed to completely change his country in 9 months.

Obama's saying that things got a little out of hand there for a while, but we're getting back to normal now. If you felt we bullshitted you on Iraq, don't assume we'll be bullshitting you the next time we ask for your help.

If you conservatives are nostalgic for the Guys Gone Wild days, where we single-handedly reinterpreted international law, and burned up all the goodwill we got after 9/11,that's your privilege.

I once went to a lecture given by Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the USSR, a surprisingly keen-minded man.

He proposed that the U.S. should never sign human rights treaties with the Soviets or similar countries, because such countries agree to whatever it is they think we want to hear, then go about doing whatever they want to do anyway.

Now it's time for some payback.

Obama has spent the last two years completely confusing most of America by telling us -- in lofty generalities -- what we think we want to hear.

Now it's our turn to loose him on the world.

* * *

I'm not being entirely cynical. I think we underestimate how much good diplomacy can be done under the aegis of pleasing, but nonbinding banalities.

I agree with you, Skyler, in a lot of ways. Obama's basic premises are made up of the basic premises of Marxism.

However, you and your ilk tend to go off the rails. There is no conspiracy to overthrow free enterprise and seize the means of production. Even when I use those terms, and I do, I am using them as a rhetorical device.

I would classify myself as a conservative libertarian, and I think you do a disservice to the goals we both have when you say, just for example, that "giving DVD's as gifts" to "all our non-marxist allies" is part of some fiendish plot.

How does the old saw go? Never assign to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity. Something like that.

"Notice that phosphoria and Alpha Lineral don't defend the content of the speech; they merely attack the President's critics."

The content of his speech? You mean the substance of his remarks? Which was at the same time boringly trite, ridiculously clownish, and plain evidence of a sinister and effective mind bent on the destruction of western values?

Even Woodrow Wilson might have blanched at the mushy-headed exhortations to world peace and collective action better suited to a college dorm-room bull session or a holiday-season Coca-Cola commercial.

I've been thinking about Obama's foreign policy and somehow a candy bar commercial like slogan co9mes to mind-

Obama's saying that things got a little out of hand there for a while, but we're getting back to normal now. If you felt we bullshitted you on Iraq, don't assume we'll be bullshitting you the next time we ask for your help.

...and if you're in E Europe and trusted us, or are a small country to our South that isn't a major exporter of oil, then, well, we don't see much need to help you.

...and ignore how much I personally voted for all of these proposals you hate and am, in fact, continuing to this day. Nothing to see there, kids.

At least the Democrats had their conviction Algore would have avoiding getting environmentally unhinged after his loss and actually been a good President.

Republicans, who saw the McCain-Palin meltdown, are under no such illusions.

At least we were spared the sight of McCain emerging clasping hands with Pelosi, Reid every few weeks from behind closed doors to announce the Bipartisan:

1. 1 Trillion stimulus plan for CEOs AND unions.2. Closing Gitmo.3. The McCain-Waxman "Cap&Trade" Compromise.4. McCain's Amnesty Program for all illegals, announced by Special Immigration Czar Hernadez, the former advisor to the Mexican Gov't and one of McCains "dear friends". With every Dem leader lined up behind him praising his "Courage and honor". 5. Work on the 882 billion Kennedy Heathcare Plan, which Pelosi and McCain agreed to name in honor of their deceased "Dear Friend" proceeds. McCain announces that he has found and Pelosi has agreed to cut 108 million in "bad earmarks" out of the package. "We need fiscal sanity!" McCain beams to fawning camera crews..6. No word on any change in the one area of breakdown..McCains ultimatum that he will soon bomb Iran, Sudan, Syria, and N Korea unless they "Embrace Freedom!"7. Meanwhile, VP Palin is crisscrossing the country with a plane full of fashion reporters trailing, trying to rally support for McCain from Fundies upset with with his other Deals w/Democrats. She says bombing Iran would make all that unimportant because saving Israel was all about Souls. "We bomb Iran, we save Israel! Yah juss never 2nd guess what Israel says we should do, never. Yah just don't 2nd guess Netanyahu!"7. Gold reaches 2,000 an ounce, oil price soars on the prospects of McCains War with Iran and his feeding military retirees into Iraq and Afghanistan for his "Freedom Lovers!!" salvation.8. A public hungry for good news absolutely loves Cindy McCain. And the "2nd Dude" is equally popular after he publicly bitch-slapped Letterman when he insulted his family yet again on his show. And pronounced Letterman looked "especially ironic" when he was done.

"Why don't you tell us what YOU think about the speech, what you agree with or don't, instead of what you think other people think about the speech?"

Because the Fantbulous Ms Althouse didn't really discuss the content either, but simply dismissed it as clownish. . . more clownish actually than Gaddafy. And the Usual Althouistic Suspects piled on, as they always, always do.

But, since you asked. . . his speech is part of a broader dismantling of American exceptionalism, which is a damn good thing.

Netanyahu has a different responsibility than a blog commenter with an alias, so his comments about the speech are not entirely spontaneous.

I was listening to the speech while packing up a hotel room. Some of it seemed okay. But when he got to the line about "if anyone doubts...look at how far we've come in the last nine months," I was just stunned. That's as far back as the goodness of the USA extends, in Obama's mind?

Obama is like Penelope from SNL! http://tinyurl.com/8b2694 He is immersed in the glory of me. When is he going to propose to declare that 2009 is now Year Zero?

wv: gimil. "Of all the gimils in all the towns, in all the world. she walks into mine"

If by American exceptionalism is meant high ideals, a shining city on a hill, a light unto the nations, uncompromising standards, such as freedom to follow your dreams, accepting immigrants, etc., I hope we are restoring American exceptionalism.

If by American exceptionalism is meant the rules apply to everyone but us, then I hope we are dismantling American exceptionalism.

If by American exceptionalism is meant high ideals, a shining city on a hill, a light unto the nations, uncompromising standards, such as freedom to follow your dreams, accepting immigrants, etc., I hope we are restoring American exceptionalism.

If by American exceptionalism is meant the rules apply to everyone but us, then I hope we are dismantling American exceptionalism.

No coincidence that Richie Starbursts and his fellow Corner Travelers are moaning over the fact the president didn't beat his chest and make threats to other countries on the world stage, because, that's what works on them. Ahmadinejad or Chavez makes a threat thousands of miles away and that scares the living shit out of them. I didn't hear any hissy fits about Palin trashing the president on foreign soil. And remember, whatever is coming out of Sarah Palins mouth is what she figures is just smart enough to fool Todd.

Read carefully, this is EXACTLY what you said at 5:14 pm. You quoted me and then responded...

True.

I said that a dismantling of American Exceptionalism is a good thing. You said that shows I'm a jackass.

NO, JACKASS. LEARN TO READ.

EVERYBODY ELSE on this thread read my words and can see that you are incapable of parsing them. There is no point in telling me I said something different from what everyone can SEE I said. Seven Machos got it. Why can't you?

Speak clearly, so that there is no danger of me misunderstanding you. And remember, I'm a jackass who doesn't read well.

No problems there.

I'm with fls on American exceptionalism, since he takes both sides!

When America is right, I'm on America's side, regardless of what "world opinion" says. When America's wrong, I'm not. Who judges when America's right and wrong? I do; everyone must judge for themselves.

When America refused to intervene in Rwanda, despite our legal obligations to do so under the UN charter, that was wrong, and I was not on America's side in that question.

The fact that the UN also refused to do anything substantive about Rwanda has no bearing on whether it was right or wrong for America to do so.

So I don't approve of Obama's speech, as to me it seems he cedes a moral authority to the UN which in my opinion it does not deserve.

He is our elected President and has the legitimate right to say those kinds of the UN. But as a free citizen I am not obligated to agree, and I have the right to criticize him, as those citizens did who disagreed with Bush.

"When America is right, I'm on America's side, regardless of what "world opinion" says. When America's wrong, I'm not. Who judges when America's right and wrong? I do; everyone must judge for themselves.

Clear enough?"

Clear enough, I suppose. . . but I can't imagine why you simply didn't say that you are against American exceptionalism, since that is what the position you outline above amounts to, no?

Look: the unparalleled Ms. Althouse suggested that Obama's speech was awful, and that Obama himself, by making it was more clownish than Gaddafy.

That strikes me as a stupid thing to say, and yet the Althousiasts were united in their agreement that this was yet another Terrible Obama Mistake.

There was very little talk of the substance of the speech, and indeed some disagreement as to whetehr the speech had any substance: some said it was cliche and fluff, other believe it was substantial when what was wanted was fluff, and there was at least one who declared it evil.

I ridiculed the stupidity and mocked the hysterics.

When it finally came doen to a discussion of the content, I claimed that it was a rejection of American exceptionalism.

There would be two ways of disagreeing with me: one, claim that American exceptionalism is good, or two, claim that his speech was not about that at all.

Neither option was used, and instead Althouslandia were content to dismiss me as boring, immature, irrlevant or whatever.

It's not that Obama spoke before the UN. It's what he said when he did.

Yeah. Precisely. And what he said touched on what makes America great in the eyes of the rest of the world, even if it's not the same stuff that makes America great in your eyes.

It's not that Obama is trying to make nice with the rest of the world. It's that he will fail. As Socrates noted, and phosphorious so ably demonstrates you can't convince people who won't listen.

What constantly amazes me, is this knee-jerking impulse to call out what differentiates us from other nations and leader by how supposedly evil and craven they all are, while failing to understand that they might be different from us in their appreciation of America for different reasons than those which make you or other Americans appreciate America.

The inability to comprehend that is an example of completely insulated, isolated, and (when it comes to foreign policy) dangerous thinking.

No it doesn't: American exceptionalism means that America should be excepted from the same rules that govern other nations.

That's what it means TO YOU.

Just like "socialism" means one thing to Communists and another thing to Swedes and a third thing to Republicans.

To me, and those who think like me, "American exceptionalism" means that America is on the right side of things more often than not.

America would forfeit its 'exceptionalism' by doing the wrong thing more often than not.

As for your torture example, it's a bad one, because "torture" is another word that means different things to different people, and you have to LISTEN to what people said.

"Torture", like "lies", are opposed by everyone. To label a thing as "torture" or "lie" or "fascist" is to condemn it. If you don't know what someone means when they use a word, but impose your definitions on them, then you won't get anywhere arguing with them.

What constantly amazes me, is this knee-jerking impulse to call out what differentiates us from other nations and leader by how supposedly evil and craven they all are, while failing to understand that they might be different from us in their appreciation of America for different reasons than those which make you or other Americans appreciate America.

I see that all the prizes for reading comprehension have not yet been awarded. Phosphorious has a rival.

Well, if you have trouble comprehending that your insistence on differentiating other nations and their leaders from us on a moral level - while failing to differentiate them from us in terms of what ideas might resonate with them and make them (or us) appreciate America - then you have a bigger problem than reading comprehension. You have a problem with thinking generally.

Psychologists call the ability to understand that all people, based on differing perceptions, might not share the same understanding of things, a "theory of mind", and the capacity for it is thought to be crucial. It typically develops in childhood.

Millions of people no doubt liked Obama's speech and millions were greatly disappointed.

Among those who liked it are our most dangerous enemies. Also I suppose a lot of comfortable people with concerns about global warming, sinking landscape, eliminating nuclear weapons, unicorn extinction, etc. Other than Palestinians, I doubt anyone truly in need found it comforting.

Among those disappointed are desperate people who through no fault of their own are being oppressed by thugs, totalitarianism and dictators. People who know that no other nation will take the risks or endure the cost to help them.

You may care strongly about those people who's homes my sink under rising seas or will have no unicorns to milk, but there are really desperate oppressed people now. This nation has usually been the only ones the truly desperate had any hope would help them.

I haven't followed the thread Gabriel and have no idea where you're coming from in terms of what argument you wish to make regarding "American Exceptionalism".

But my point, based on what I infer from hearing that term invoked in the context of Obama's comments, is that those who harp on Obama's statements regarding American Exceptionalism don't seem to understand that it does an American president no good to hawk that idea to foreign audiences.

Some people (in America) might get off on hearing the noises that result from having their country's dick jerked off. Others around the world, not so much.

I haven't followed the thread Gabriel and have no idea where you're coming from in terms of what argument you wish to make regarding "American Exceptionalism"....yet I feel free to comment on it and call you names in my own sluggish way. I will now make an attempt at joking about masturbation, because it's something I know very well.

I haven't followed the thread Gabriel and have no idea where you're coming from in terms of what argument you wish to make regarding "American Exceptionalism".

Ah. So you admit that you criticized me without even bothering to find out if I'd said the thing you were critical of. Instead, you assumed what my opinions were based on which commentors I was disagreeing with.

Vague statement coming from someone commenting on a thread that completely ignores the fact that the effect of Obama's speech depends entirely on the audience in question.

If my audience is at an eighth-grade reading level, as the U.S. government (and I) assume you are, then no, you won't understand what I say.

"Montana, I would give you an F with regard to your turgid prose, but that suggests that your work is somehow subject to interpretation."

I think anyone who doesn't understand the difference between writing for its own sake and the quality of the ideas expressed, might stand to benefit from clinical interpretation.

"Obama's speech will be judged harshly by Americans. On the plus side, at least it's understandable."

By people who are able to understand who the audience was for Obama's speech, it won't be judged harshly. But on the plus side, this statement shows that you didn't get that - thus revealing how stupid you are.

Want some flowers to go with that?

By the way, try some more interesting words than "florid" and "turgid". Just because you understand what critics do, doesn't mean you understand what's being criticized. But that's because you're a poseur. And an idiot, of course.

American exceptionalism is a confidence booster, but that is all. On the other hand, American leadership of the free world and free trade economy financed thru Wall Street (the World Trade Center targeted firms) has been a real fact that Obama has set his hand to destroying. Why? The answer he gave yesterday was to make room for the New Leader and his New World currency not dependent upon American military might and not dependent upon Wall Street firms, that's why. He is a fifth columnist force for the ending of American power and influence. At least he has been loyal to George Soros.

American Exceptionalism has a specific meaning and there is indisputable evidence of it. Seriously, if you want to know why people like me subscribe to it watch the video I linked to above at 6:47pm. Agree or not, you should understand this concept well before you discuss American foreign policy. It is the most important principle involved.

American exceptionalism is a confidence booster, but that is all. On the other hand, American leadership of the free world and free trade economy financed thru Wall Street (the World Trade Center targeted firms) has been a real fact that Obama has set his hand to destroying. Why? The answer he gave yesterday was to make room for the New Leader and his New World currency not dependent upon American military might and not dependent upon Wall Street firms, that's why. He is a fifth columnist force for the ending of American power and influence. At least he has been loyal to George Soros.

Where are the Illuminati and the Freemasons and the reverse vampires?

I'd offer you a tinfoil hat, but if you've been keeping up, you'll see it's only because I'm one of THEM.

Ah. So you admit that you criticized me without even bothering to find out if I'd said the thing you were critical of. Instead, you assumed what my opinions were based on which commentors I was disagreeing with.

Your candor is refreshing, enjoy your jackass ears.

wv:unreasin. What montana urban legend substitutes for argument.

See, there's where you're wrong. I didn't criticize you. I criticized a recently popularized habit of invoking "American Exceptionalism" as some sort of litmus test for Obama's creds. And I gave you ample opportunity to clarify your reasons for referring to it. The fact that you rejected that opportunity says more about which one of us is willing to argue in good faith than I think you know.

"reasin" looks more like "resin" than "reason". Or maybe "raisin".

Listen, if you're one of the rare commenters here who actually has ideas that go beyond over-simplified, dualistic thinking, then by all means, indulge me. Explain the significance of this term to this thread or to the event of the day. Or insult me for asking. But don't be hypocritical and do what you're accusing me of doing.

You are a hack with no original ideas, no writing ability whatsoever, and no desire to find common ground. Please find something else to do with your time. Alternatively, please edit your bloated prose by at least 70 percent.

American Exceptionalism has a specific meaning and there is indisputable evidence of it. Seriously, if you want to know why people like me subscribe to it watch the video I linked to above at 6:47pm. Agree or not, you should understand this concept well before you discuss American foreign policy. It is the most important principle involved.

I'm pretty sure I've seen that video. And yet, I have no idea what place it has in any statement Obama or any other president in this day and age gives to a foreign audience.

Seriously, what purpose does it serve for the leader of a country to tell foreign audiences that he's a big believer in his country's innate exceptionalism? Other than to prove that he needs a patriotic, but ideological crutch in order to boost his confidence in his own skills as a leader of that country?

I'm sure it wouldn't make the foreign audience very confidence in that leader's abilities. Or his wisdom.

Listen, if you're one of the rare commenters here who actually has ideas that go beyond over-simplified, dualistic thinking, then by all means, indulge me. Explain the significance of this term to this thread or to the event of the day. Or insult me for asking.

I already explained what I meant by the word and why I disapproved of Obama's speech. If you had bothered to follow the conversation you'd know that, as well as why the subject came up; if you're too lazy to scroll up, that's your problem. You've no right to demand explanations of what you could easily learn for yourself like a little child who wanders into the middle of a movie, to quote Walter Sobchak.

If the answers I've already given don't satisfy you, we'll learn to live with it.

You are a hack with no original ideas, no writing ability whatsoever, and no desire to find common ground. Please find something else to do with your time. Alternatively, please edit your bloated prose by at least 70 percent.

I notice that Nachos at least has the presence of mind to not attempt to mock my intelligence. He knows he's too dumb to say something that would openly reveal him to be that stupid.

And given how stupid he is, I don't think he's in a position to declare what my motives are, either (cf: "no desire to find common ground").

I also think that someone who posts an avatar of himself wearing a mask that reminds one of "the gimp" in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is not in a good position to tell others what to do with their time, or to make comments about the purported sexual habits of others.

I'm not lazy. I've just read enough of what's posted here to have a good idea of what to expect.

It's called "efficient" in certain crowds. ;-)

But your unwillingness to offer a simple clarification in the same post - despite hitting on the familiar themes of Obama's alleged failure and American Exceptionalism in the same breath - doesn't do much to counter my original suspicion of what you meant.

I also think that someone who posts an avatar of himself wearing a mask that reminds one of "the gimp" in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is not in a good position to tell others what to do with their time, or to make comments about the purported sexual habits of others.

I'm not lazy. I've just read enough of what's posted here to have a good idea of what to expect.

In other words, you invented opinions for me.

But your unwillingness to offer a simple clarification in the same post - despite hitting on the familiar themes of Obama's alleged failure and American Exceptionalism in the same breath - doesn't do much to counter my original suspicion of what you meant.

And you consider yourself to have a license to keep doing it.

You just make yourself look worse and worse.

How hard is it to scroll up?

You don't even have to do that! I'll give you a tip I learned from Ric Romero himself: Crtl-F and then type in Gabriel Hanna.

Oh, how can I stay mad at you? Your prose makes me so lubricious and tumescent.

Here, I'll cut and paste my previous posts. But I'm only doing it because I like your prose.

When America is right, I'm on America's side, regardless of what "world opinion" says. When America's wrong, I'm not. Who judges when America's right and wrong? I do; everyone must judge for themselves.

When America refused to intervene in Rwanda, despite our legal obligations to do so under the UN charter, that was wrong, and I was not on America's side in that question.

The fact that the UN also refused to do anything substantive about Rwanda has no bearing on whether it was right or wrong for America to do so.

So I don't approve of Obama's speech, as to me it seems he cedes a moral authority to the UN which in my opinion it does not deserve.

He is our elected President and has the legitimate right to say those kinds of the UN. But as a free citizen I am not obligated to agree, and I have the right to criticize him, as those citizens did who disagreed with Bush.

Oh, how can I stay mad at you? Your prose makes me so lubricious and tumescent.

Even moreso than American exceptionalism does?

The Gimp's hat was leather and the eyes and mouth zipped up.

Seven Machos has a ski mask.

I am uniquely qualified to judge the distinction.

Yes. That's good to know. But can't ski masks also be worn by sociopaths -- burglars and the like? I think the point is one of concealing one's face. But I'm glad you're making the distinctions here. Because my less charitable stance toward someone as stupid and insignificant as Machos would lead to my lumping in the motivation behind his avatar as being similar to the motivation that would lead one to wear either that, the gimp mask, or just a pair of pantyhose over one's face. In a certain setting, all of those are intended to give the same impression.

But can't ski masks also be worn by sociopaths -- burglars and the like?......the motivation behind his avatar as being similar to the motivation that would lead one to wear either that, the gimp mask, or just a pair of pantyhose over one's face.

The Gimp is a masochist, not a sociopath. Do defer to my unique qualifications here.

Even moreso than American exceptionalism does?

We don't agree on what that label represents, so American exceptionalism doesn't make me tumescent or lubricious.

But I got a different impression from the excerpts I read of Obama's speech. In them I didn't find any references to the U.S. "ceding" moral authority to the U.N. He seemed to pushing the same ideas Bush did about whether the U.N. wanted to remain relevant and a voice for moral authority period (and not, more morally authoritative than the U.S., but morally authoritative at all). And when it comes to that, I think he made hispoint much more effectively.

But Seven "Masked Avenger" Nachos thinks he's in a good position to judge the words and writings of others, so what do I know? I mean, it's not like Obama and his staff asked for a review of what they were going to say by "Seven Machos" before going in front of the GA. I think that's what Seven's really got his panties in a bunch about.

In it I didn't find any references to the U.S. "ceding" moral authority to the U.N.

No, he didn't explicitly say that, and I didn't say he did. Reasonable people can disagree with me. Unreasonable people will also, and I will waste time trying to make them feel ashamed.

Notice I used Rwanda as an example of when I thought America was in the wrong. Based on that example and the other things I posted, phosphorious concluded that I was against what HE meant by "American exceptionalism".

But if I had chosen to talk about my support of the Iraq war, he would have concluded that I was FOR what HE meant by "American exceptionalism".

Even though it's the same set of principles in either case (for me, and no, I don't feel like opening up that argument right now). The confusion comes because I reject one of his premises--what HE means by "American exceptionalism".

I know that your interest in Mexican wrestling makes you an astute, intelligent young man, Machos. With opinions that are just oh so brilliant and articulate!

You dazzle the masses with the way you turn conventional wisdom and the entire foreign policy establishment on its head!

But do try to refrain from phrases like "boneheaded tool". It's unbecoming of someone of your caliber of thought. What would the other wrestlers think? It's not your physical fighting skills they admire, after all!

What's said is how little energy the so-called supporters of the President are expending defending him. Instead, they spend their times simply snarking down the opposition.

The President bombed at the UN, and made it sound like before him there was only a fascist state that tortured people and put them in illegal prisons. But now, in just 9 short months, he's stopped that torturing and imprisonment - except he hasn't.

So maybe what the President was really saying was not that America is no longer exceptional, but that HE is not exceptional.

The President spoke at the UN on and on about what HE's been doing and what HE thinks and what HE believes.

He's the freakin' President of the United States and he treats the UN like it's the judge's panel at the Miss USA contest.

I'm surprised he didn't flutter his hands afterwards and express how truly surprised he was with weepy eyes.

"In just 41 speeches so far this year, not including this week's big speech at the United Nations, Obama has talked about himself nearly 1,200 times – 1,198 to be exact. (That breaks down to 1,121 “I”s and just 77 “me”s.)"

First, it assumes that the world didn't have a bad perception of the "security state" "fortress America" built by Bush. But since you seem unaware of that fact, or find it unimportant, you think it doesn't matter that Obama shows the world that his country is now more like the one they used to admire, before it resorted to unilateralism and militarism as the solutions of first resort.

So I apologize. You weren't incoherent. Just ignorant.

But it is incoherent for someone to assume that the opinion of one's audience doesn't matter, as the U.N. was Obama's audience when he spoke. AND THAT'S THE MOST EASILY UNDERSTOOD POINT THAT YOU CONSISTENTLY FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WITH EVERY COMMENT YOU POST!

owls actually arent very smart as far as birds go. and its awful being forced to dissect their puke pellets. as it is here with our owl and his pellets.

Translation: I have nothing substantive to add to the conversation, so I will just go ahead and relate disgusting stories of boring things that I have done or heard about so as to insult those of you who do. And I am also too stupid to acknowledge that owls are an ancient symbol of wisdom - a virtue of which my interlocutor is an exemplary representative.

Ok. Me and Gabriel have clarified. And it looks like Machos is plum out of insults and snipes. Miller's been decisively outwitted. And anyone else is cut off at the pass. No one else has anything to say and must now nod in agreement with the fact that The God of The World, President Obama, has once again put the right wing to shame while inevitably restoring American greatness in the eyes of the world. Thread's done. Good night.

Awwww.... I just had to come back to review/scroll through the thread, and LOOK! Little Machos is back. I think the guy needs a noogie. You know, when you put your arm around his neck and vigorously rub his head with your fist. That's what Machos needs! Come on, Machos. Admit your need to be simultaneously embraced while you're being put in place by your superiors! The leaders of the pack will still accept lowly little you.

Just be glad that no mounting displays will be made. I know you relate to others on a very primitive level, but I'm not that crude. Just noogies for you, Machos! No mounting.

BTW, it's a cop-out to construct one's own, personal definition of American Exceptionalism. The idea describes an enduring quality of America of a country, and not an evaluative criterion that changes minute to minute based on the whims that dictate the approval or disapproval of this policy or that, this president or that. We are talking about a lasting feature of America as a country, not an ad hoc judgment on any single action.

I think this is a useful point. Many people here confuse criticism of America or of certain presidents or parties with a devaluation of America. But in doing so, they fail to note the difference between judging the actions of one's country and judging one's country itself. The resemblance to certain psychological themes is striking. And noted.